Police Abuse Downtown? Vote Tomorrow at the BS (Bookshop Santa Cruz) protest 2 PM 10-7

The Sentinel's comment section (found after its on-line stories in some cases) had some interesting dialogue between Ryan Coonerty and others on the issue of the Bookshop Boycott at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com /archive/2007/September/21/edit/stories/01edit.htm The comment section followed a nasty editorial (also available to read at that website)

Steve Hartmann, a strong conservative, who actually supported homeless people feeding other homeless people at the Town Clock back in 1989, begins the discussion:


9/21/2007 1:31 PM

OK, so I've got a soft spot for Robert Norse. This does not mean I am in agreement with the HUFF/Homeless position. I am not.

So here goes: Robert, your attack on Bookshop Santa Cruz makes absolutely no sense! Here's why

Norse et al, decide to attack Book Shop Santa Cruz to get Coonerty and Co. to change their minds on the camping ban issue.

However, council members are not allowed, by law, to act on issues to which they have direct involvement. Therefore, Ryan Coonerty must excuse himself from involvement or voting on this particular issue.

So, haven't you, Robert, and your gang shot yourselves in the feet by involving Coonerty because your actions have "forced" his inaction, (again by law), through your own doing?

...Just a thought here, and as we all know, I'm no rocket scientist. But to me, there seems to be a major flaw in your strategy, Robert.

Steve Hartmann


9/21/2007 3:18 PM
Steve:

True, rational arguments are unlikely to change the minds of people on the City Council (though we welcome such a debate). Coonerty votes regularly on repressive anti-homeless laws (initiating them, in fact), For instance, an enforcement-happy city staff is pressing to make public assembly in any parking lot illegal (except for 15 minutes for those with cars and bicycles). Sound kooky? It's the law that Coonerty wanted passed last year, based in part of complaints from "his employees" at the Bookshop Santa Cruz.

Perhaps Coonerty should recuse himself on these issues, but I doubt that he will.

More realistically, this protest is to make people aware of how unresponsive and unreasonable their Mayor, Vice-Mayor (not to mention Police Chief, City Manager, and City Attorney) are on so brainless an issue.

If Los Angeles moves to end its Sleeping Ban and San Diego, Richmond, and Fresno follow, it's absurd for liberal Santa Cruz to keep its deadly law.

It's just going to cost the City more money in court, unless city councilmembers get the message from the public beforehand.

Contact the Council at 420-5020 to save the community another hundred thousands or so---what they spent defending their indefensible false arrest at City Council in the 2002 mock-Nazi salute case, still in the courts and still putting bread on City Attorney Barisone's table.

Robert Norse


Steve Hartmann replies:

9/21/2007 5:21 PM

I agree with comment #4 that Ryan Coonerty should recuse himself from all homeless issues that have a direct financial impact on Bookshop Santa Cruz and downtown.

True, Mr. Coonerty does have to look out for all concerns as a city leader. However, his decisions also effect and affect his bottom line and his personal pocketbook. Hence he should not be voting on issues that directly impact such and should so state that he will recuse himself from such issues

On the other hand, that being the case, Robert Norse and Co., seeing that he has no direct council voting influence, should back off the Book Shop Santa Cruz establishment and attempt a different, less in-your-face strategy. To not do so, knowing that Coonerty has recused himself on council decisions in that regard, would be little more than vengeful retribution.

I think the people of Santa Cruz can judge for themselves what is fair and what is not - what is legal and what is not. Hence, if Norse through HUFF mentality, or Coonerty, through color-of-authority, move inappropriately against the other, most who watch the community closely will certainly voice their opinions and/or outrage.

What the HUFF people, in my opinion, ought to do is attempt an initiative to repeal the camping ban. Certainly an informative, constructive, and positive campaign versus urban select terrorism would have a far better outcome for their side than their current tactics. At least then both sides would know the true wish of the community at larg


Finally Ryan Coonerty himself weighs in:

9/21/2007 7:18 PM
Robert & Steve,

Strange to see you both in agreement (keeping SC Weird, huh?).

You both are missing basic facts. I don't own any part of bookshop and only work there part time. That is what makes Robert Norse's actions so cowardly and despicable -- he can't win politically or legally, so has decided to economically bully my family. Imagine me trying to get you to change your politics by going after the livelihood and quality of life of your loved ones who have not chosen to enter the public debate (ie my sister).

You want to change the camping ban? Get elected to council, put an initiative on the ballot, or win in court.

Ryan Coonerty


Becky Johnson responds:

9/21/2007 8:15 PM

First, HUFF had nothing to do with the vandalism at City Hall. Our protest had ended almost a month earlier. But the police know this. They have surveillance cameras at City Hall and know it was none of us.

And second, it's not the "camping ban" per se we are protesting. Some regulation of camping is reasonable. Rotkin says that we can't allow homeless people to sleep anywhere or everywhere. What HUFF is calling for, is for homeless people to sleep SOMEWHERE.

Our position, is to adopt a Pottinger-style model for police and social services. In Florida, their camping ordinances were struck down by Supreme Court in the early '90's. They ruled (similar to Jones) that you can't criminalize people for life-sustaining acts just because they can't afford a roof over their heads. There was no "magnet" of homeless people to S. Florida after Pottinger. Yes, homeless people became more visible once they stopped hiding in the bushes, but the public responded in kind by building more housing and services. It was the best of all possible outcomes.

Barisone is nuts.

He says that it's okay to arrest homeless people for SLEEPING for nine and a half hours each and every night including Christmas, within the entire City limits, in or outside of a vehicle, and that's Okay because.....

...they can sleep in the daytime.

Somehow I don't think that's going to fly with the federal judges who don't care how "special" Santa Cruz is or how nice our weather is.

Jones says you can't arrest homeless people for SLEEPING AT NIGHT or for erecting a tent or shelter IF insufficient shelter exists. Period. This is the exact same situation as we have here in Santa Cruz.

Either the City sets up a "somewhere" where unhoused people CAN sleep or they stop tickets and arrests.

Becky Johnson


I respond:

9/21/2007 8:17 PM
Ryan:

You signed the e-mail banning Becky and Bernard from the bookstore and you signed it "Vice-Mayor Coonerty."

This seems to indicate two things:

1. You have an official managerial position at the Bookshop, a position of power, which enables you to decide who shall be allowed in a store generally open to the public and who shall not.

Hence you seem to have a significant if not a deciding voice on policy issues there.

The fact that you don't "own" the Bookstore is not terribly relevant. It your enterprise.

2. You took the action not merely as "non-owner" of the Bookshop, but as "Vice-Mayor", putting the city's designation on this action. This shows a confusing conflation of official persecution and private exclusion. Did the City Council authorize you to do this?

Obviously not. Who is the bully here?

You obviously understand that it is your power and position as Vice- Mayor (and your probable City Council appointment to the Mayor- ship) that is the real reason we're at your bookstore.

You refuse to pay attention to the federal law involved. You generally disdain any dialogue. You have made yourself increasingly inaccessible except when you're threatening people.

Last Wednesday you approached us claiming that you'd found forty small fliers in your books. You denounced this as vandalism, suggesting (as your father did 13 years ago) that those who raise their voices in protest against unjust laws should be blamed instead of those who pass them, support them, and oversee their enforcement.

You called me (as you do again above) a "coward" for exposing your positions to the public and calling on people to vote with their wallets to send you a message that powerless homeless people cannot.

You won't address the issue of making 1500-2000 homeless people illegal each night for involuntary sleeping after 11 PM. This in spite of a federal court decision finding such behavior unconstitutional.

There will be a lawsuit on this issue--though that could be avoided, as Fresno, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Richmond have avoided it, through changing their laws or police policies.

I again suggest that the need to boycott your store might be ended.

Let the workers of the Bookshop Santa Cruz separate themselves from your repressive and reactionary public policies as a Vice-Mayor. And from your father's repressive record on this issue--as former Mayor, as Supervisor, and as owner of the Bookshop.

If that happens and the Bookshop goes on record supporting civil rights for the poor in this town, I'll propose personally to the organizations supporting this boycott to reconsider. Will you allow your workers to vote on this issue? If I see a sign posted in the Bookshop supporting a repeal of the Sleeping Ban, I will personally end my boycott of the Bookshop (even though I'm not allowed inside).

If not, it's perfectly reasonable to educate tourists, locals, and progressives of all stripes what lies behind the rhetoric of the Bookshop as far as public policy towards the homeless goes.

By the way, did your staff vote on whether to ban the two activists for their political views and legal protest outside? Or did you and a few others make an executive decision?

Were they given a fair hearing? What particular crime did they commit, or store policy did they violate? Who are you going to ban next?

Your fellow Councilmember Mike Rotkin tried to physically bar us from entering the August ACLU fund-raiser because we were carrying signs encouraging our ACLU. Now you follow his example by banning activists raising the same issue outside the Bookshop


You refuse to debate, just denounce, dismiss, threaten, and ban.

Banning seems to be a favorite solution of yours: Coming up next week at the Downtown Commission at 8:30 AM at City Hall is your ban on public assemblies in public parking lots. I enourage readers to attend and oppose this repressive seiure of public space.

People patronize Bookshop Santa Cruz both to buy locally and to support certain progressive principles (such as open public bathrooms, toleration for the homeless---which, to your credit you do on a private partial basis).

However your far more powerful failure to support 24-hour public bathrooms and the restoration of civil rights for homeless people shows a far more fundamental hypocrisy that the community has a right to know about and reply to--with their votes and their dollars.

Robert Norse


Becky Johnson makes another comment:
9/21/2007 9:07 PM

RYAN COONERTY WRITES: "You want to change the camping ban? Get elected to council, put an initiative on the ballot, or win in court."

BECKY: First it's the SLEEPING BAN and the BLANKET BAN parts of the camping ordinance that need to be struck. Second, if you are so sure that that the community supports violating Jones, putting the City into a liability risk, criminalizing homeless people each night for the innocent acts of sleeping, contributing to record high homeless death rates, why don't you put it on the city council agenda and have a public debate on it? 4 votes by RESPONSIBLE City council members could resolve this with a stroke of the pen. Just STOP doing harm!

But that'll be the day!! The LAST thing you are interested is an open and honest public debate on Santa Cruz MC 6.36.010 sections a, b, and c and the $97 fines they charge to the poorest of the poor.
Steve Hartmann, who began the discussion, concludes:

9/22/2007 12:20 AM
Ryan,

Thank you for taking an interest in this discussion. I know you have much on your plate.

However, honestly, to take the position that you are "merely" an employee of a plain ol' business in the city is most disengenuous. The fact is: Bookshop Santa Cruz is "your" family's business. Your profit and investment in that business, whether now or later is considered a certainty in the eyes of every reasonable thinking citizen of the community.

In essence, what we are talking about is "the appearance of impropriety" - not necessarily factual impropriety. So for the sake of that appearance of impropriety just pledge to step away from those issues that directly affect "your family's business" and take that squeaky clean step. Surely the rest of the city council is capable enough, in those few instances, to fairly judge those issues, while looking after the city's needs as you do.

I think that even those citizens who side with you in this particular matter of the camping ban, whisper of your family's financial stake in this matter. Those against your position likewise use your position on the council, along with your family's financial stake and council voting power, to buoy their position that you are pushing a personal agenda. The fact that you are linked so close to the issue personally means that their argument sticks - even resonates with many in the community.

Best wishes in your decision whatever it may be.

Steve Hartmann


Becky Johnson had some final comments:

9/22/2007 7:13 AM

TERRY C. WRITES: "When will the homeless people (I won't call the citizens because the only taxes they pay are sales tax) of our city start taking action to get a job and support themselves which includes housing?"

BECKY: First, let me say that Bookshop Santa Cruz was one of the more vocal voices in opposing a raise in the minimum wage in Santa Cruz, obstructing the ability of working people to pay the high cost of housing here in Santa Cruz.

Second, you are ignoring the 40% of our local homeless population that ARE employed, but just don't make enough money to afford housing. Another THIRD of homeless people are minors who should be in school instead of a job. Add in the mentally ill, the fragile elderly, the disabled veterans, and those who are eligible for social security disability, but became homeless during the minimum two years it takes to receive a check once the claim is filed. Evidence presented during the Eichhorn Case (Jan 2000) in Santa Ana found that only 8% of able-bodied homeless people are not working or looking for work


I'm sorry to hear you don't think a homeless man who was born and raised in Santa Cruz is not a "citizen" in your eyes because the high cost of housing dumped him on the street. Insult to injury.

There are only TWO SLOTS open in Janus, the only drug/alcohol program in Santa Cruz which accepts indigent clients. That's right. TWO.

Finally, HUFF is not asking for any FREE services or handouts. We are asking that the City Council comply with the LAW, and stop arresting homeless people for sleeping at night in a situation of inadequate shelter. It doesn't help a homeless person get back into housing if they have to pay expensive fines and now have a criminal record for "sleeping".

The Sleeping Ban is immoral, super-expensive to implement, and only contributes to deepening homelessness. And now, with the Jones decision, it is illegal as well.

Becky Johnson

Instead of pushing the button to publish, you should first push the button to preview your post. If you add a space to an indybay.org URL, then it will not work.

Broken:

To check out Vice-Mayor Coonerty's rationale (or non-rationale) for denouncing and banning protesters, see
"Vice-Mayor Bans Activists from Bookshop Santa Cruz" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/ 18443447.php

Not Broken:

To check out Vice-Mayor Coonerty's rationale (or non-rationale) for denouncing and banning protesters, see
"Vice-Mayor Bans Activists from Bookshop Santa Cruz" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443447.php

Use Preview. Triple Check Your Links. Otherwise, you waste your time and ours.

The guy will twist any fact to further his personal agenda. Now he's claiming that the idea of raising fines and police presence on the mall for Halloween is to increase revenues? Laughable, self-serving logic from our resident one-trick pony.

The reality is that 8 people have been stabbed on the mall on Halloween night in the past 2 years alone, and the citizens of Santa Cruz want something done about it. They want to feel safe to go down there to celebrate.

If Norse has a better idea of how to control the violence on the mall on Halloween, then let's hear it. The truth is, he doesn't. He's thrownng his usual disingenous b.s. out to further his pet agenda.

Triple fines are racist? Last time I checked, the fines don't count if you don't break the laws.

The SCPD/Coonerty Public Assembly Ban in Parking Lots comes up in the 7 PM session, not the 3 PM session, as I thought earlier. It's item #20 after Oral Communications and a Transportation Commission recommendation on bike lanes on Mission. So the Coonerty crackdown law could come as early as 7:45 PM or as late as 9 PM.

Balloting continues on selective enforcement downtown--the community's view (as distinguished from the SCPD view and the City Council SCPD-pleasing view). Check out SAFE (Society for Artistic Freedom and Expression)'s "Take Back the Streets" musicalizing in front of New Leaf Market 6 PM- 10 PM on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays to vote if you didn't vote today in front of the Bookshop Santa Cruz.

Thanks to indymedia article checkers for the tip and the second look at my links. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

It would be interesting to note how much more money the City made last year on triple fines (that bit of info I don't recall hearing from Tina S. or her SCPD friends). The ever-anonymous badmouther who wrote the previous comment might well be right. Homeless folks who got tickets last year (no stats on how many of them were homeless, naturally), can't pay their fines anyway. Their tickets just go to Failure to Appear, get sent south, and surcharged with a $300 fine. This serves to ruin any credit rating they may try to use in the future. And makes getting off the streets more difficult. Nice thinking.

However the argument that triple-fine zones make us "safer" alway struck me as disingenous. "Stabbing" penalties are not increased under the triple-fine zones (that's a state penal code), so it's unclear how this will reduce stabbings.

To remind our brave anonymous critic, the following get tripled in penalty: Chapter 9.12 (Possession of open containers or consumption of alcoholic beverages in public places); Chapter 9.36 (Noise control); Chapter 9.28 (Discharge of firearms); Chapter 9.50 (Conduct on public property); Chapter 9.20 (Defacing sidewalks); 9.60 (Trespassing); 9.62 (Trespass – public transit facilities); Chapter 10.12 (Traffic regulation obedience); Chapter 10.16 (Traffic control device obedience); and, Chapter 10.40 (Offenses pertaining to the standing, stopping or parking of vehicles).

Other than the "discharge of firearms" (which hasn't been a problem as far as I know), the ordinances have nothing to do with violence. Violence is another ruse to give police increased power (since the increased fines presumably make people more fearful).

I think the general idea is to discourage folks from coming. That's not explicitly stated since it's part of the subterranean culture war which is more easily pursued by safety pretexts. But it's on the minds of our Social Control Masters, for sure.

Real ways to reduce crime: fund some of our local street musicians and performers to create some events downtown, so folks can do more than wander back and forth from bar to bar. I'd also like to say something like put a triple tax on alcohol for the night, but that has a semi-prohibitionist aspect to it. Close down all the liquor stores for the night? No, that would violate free enterprise.

Ya got me. But obviously Triple Fine Zones are irrelevant.

It's interesting how the towns of San Francisco and also Berkeley to an extent have parallel stories, where they are supposedly cracking down on an upsurge in bad homeless behavior. Also, they are reacting to halloween rather strongly, although that is more justified in the case of San Francisco.

It seems though, that there is really no believable mechanism explaining a recent trend in bad behavioral choices. What is a lot more believable is that there is a longer waiting line for psychiatric care, and many more people with any misfortune are unable to pay the $1000 rents for 1-bedroom units. If you review the foreclosure news, it is pretty clear that many families are about to join the fray in scrambling for remaining rental units. Given that it's pretty easy to demonstrate that large-scale economic forces are driving much of this stuff, why not address the problem at that level, rather than with

For instance, these people are like "we're cool, we're not suburban" and they're fighting against the extreme alcoholics and untreated mentally ill in the Tenderloin/SOMA area. However, if you review San Francisco history, it is pretty clear that the Tenderloin has always been a neighborhood with cheap housing, opium dens, and lots of single men with an economy supporting various booms such as the goldrush: read 'you can't win' by Jack Black for an excellent account of how it used to be more intense in the 1910s ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfZX-4iQOgQ ). What probably changed is that there aren't as many flophouse beds any more now that computer programmers are moving in the area.
One idea that is constantly tossed about to the point where I bet most of the public believes it is that outdoor homeless are the ones who have rejected shelter beds because they want to shoot up. I wouldn't doubt that SF has more addicted homeless than Santa Cruz, but the reason why more Santa Cruz residents probably aren't responding to the sleeping ban campaign is precisely for this reason. They assume there are shelter beds and people unwilling to face addiction are rejecting them, and so allowing them to stay outside is being an 'enabler', because this is how the story has been told on the news so often. Tolerable conditions at shelter beds is a concern is some spots where the town actually does have shelters. It is really irritating or dangerous being around certain mentally ill people, and if a church just crowds 80 people in a room and a few are acting out, that could just exacerbate some people's condition

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/09/MN9RSMAJ9.DTL